Will The Map Of The World Change?

[Sip]

The question has been going through my mind in the last few years thinking whether we are at the end of "territorial expansion" by the "bully" powers and countries ... well, at least in the classical meaning of the word. Given the current state of the globe, its politics, and how international affairs are run, and given the power that US has as the global police, is it fair to assume that the map of the world is going to stay fairly static for the forseeable future? In other words, are we pretty much done with "territorial expansion" as the means to gain power?

 

I just can't imagine a country going and taking over another country anymore ... like they used to do in the last century and before ... I am guessing conflicts and wars will go on in the hot spots ... regime changes will still happen ... US will have (or try to have) it's hands in everything ... but a good old fashioned take-over of one region owned by one country by another country?

 

So how far-off from reality do you think this is (ignoring the relatively tiny Israel/Palestine region) ? I guess we may get to a point where North and South Korea merge again. India and Pakistan will keep going at it. African tribes will beat each other up and there will be civil wars and etc. But how much of change can we expect to see in the map of the globe?

[Stormig]

I think the question regarding the map change should be rather one of whether countries are going to keep breaking up. Probably not, at least not among the attention-getting. What some people say about the unimportance of borders in tomorrow's world is true; however, much of the world is far from attaining benefits of globalization to let it be, and this gives them no choice other than to try to develop so that they may dictate their terms and be respected or not be crushed - or just preserve themselves.

[Dan]

I just can't imagine a country going and taking over another country anymore ...like they used to do in the last century and before ...

You are right, Sip. I can't imagine that either. But, we must all remind ourselves that as the times change, so does the definition of "taking over." Right now as it stands, you don't necessarily have to crush a country militarily in order to "take over." We've seen that in the case of Saudi Arabia and in an even better example, USA. Sometimes it takes a military attack to "change" regime, but the regime change in itself IS a form of take-over. Why would a country sacrifice the lives of its soldiers in a cause not related to itself or its own country, if it wouldn't have ANY gains?

 

but a good old fashioned take-over of one region owned by one country by another country?

Perhaps as the century advances and as USA's global bullying advances and becomes more outright and unapologized for by USA and its foreign policy, then maybe the concept of "taking over" will once again change to its old definition of military attacks.. Who knows what time has in store, and what plans/projects countries are working on? Take PNAC as an example..

 

And one more thing, I think USA's policy of eliminating countries' power and sovereignity ONE BY ONE (by using a different excuse each time), and not in a massive attack against everyone, is a very smart way of enforcing their authority fist on the world. After all, there's still Russia, and China, as well as Japan (which is capable of building a nuclear weapon in a VERY short time), and they wouldn't like what good ol' USA is doing if USA started bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, etc. at the same time, and that would be the start of yet another World War. Another World War would DEFINITELY change the global map though. But God help us if it takes place.

 

Dan

Edited April 30, 2003 by Dan

[shiner]

I think that boundaries will dissolve more and more as we are heading towards an increasingly global economy. The world is becoming a smaller place due to advanced technology.

 

Maybe 200 years from now the world (if it still exists) will be one big country/society.

[bellthecat]

The U.S. is already making a good job of dissolving boundaries - making the whole world united (against America)

 

http://www.theonion.com/images/241/article1731.jpg

[Armat]

One does not have to take over militarily. IMF controls many countries in the third world. Yes, economic independence is true independence. Who needs a country, which does have a nice looking flag but does not own its resources and its people immigrate in thousands abroad for Jobs. Wait this is scary over one million Armenians left Armenia since independence…

[Teutonic Knight]

I'm only concerned with Europe.

You can bet good money that the map of the Balkans will change in the very near future. Georgia will msot likely lose Abkhazia for good along with Adjaria (Russian protectorate). Armenia might gain Javakhk on the short run.

 

http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1064727433.GIF

 

The territory with white stripes is non-Armenian land taken from georgia in order to have a common border with Russia.

Edited September 28, 2003 by Teutonic Knight

[Vayri7X]

Good point on the role of Interntional Financial Institutions ( IFIs) like the World Bank/IMF.

 

IMO, sovereignity and self-determination will be ( and presently is) a joke due to the economic policies which privilege the dollar over independance. Therefore, whatever boundaries may exist on a map is increasingly irrelevant in terms of self-determination for the peoples of that country.